Six Dr. Seuss books to be removed from publication!

[Hepcat]

Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which holds the Dr. Seuss trademark and the copyrights to the much beloved author's works and thus accordingly licenses Dr. Seuss books and imagery for reproduction, announced Tuesday that it would cease publication of six Dr. Seuss books because of "insensitive" imagery. Here are the six:



Sad this modern day cancel culture. I remember taking great delight as a kid in McElligot's Pool, If I Ran the Zoo and On Beyond Zebra! together with the ten or so other Dr. Seuss books at my local library branch. McElligot's Pool is in fact still my very favourite Dr. Seuss book and I have a copy packed away somewhere. It's about what a young boy hopes to catch in the tiny neighbourhood pond. I'm sure the fish and other creatures portrayed in these delightful books will be relieved that his "hurtful" caricatures have been removed from the market.

I wish now I'd not dallied and had bought all of the Dr. Seuss books years ago.

 

[Joseph_Baeza]

An absolute shame, Hepcat.  These cancel culture folks who are offended by Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head and virtually everything else really need to get a life.   

[Mike Scott]

Yeah, get over yourselves, six year old black kids! Who are you to spoil our fun? Be mindful of your place!

[Sir Masksalot]

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp but why can't people stop allowing outside forces to dictate
when they should choose to feel offended and assume some responsibility for their own attitudes?

[Mike Scott]

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp but why can't people stop allowing outside forces to dictate
when they should choose to feel offended and assume some responsibility for their own attitudes?

Who's the outside force, here?

[Flower]

It only took 70 plus years to figure out that the books were offending people .. err .. could be offending people if they looked hard enough.   

I guess that these books upset folks who have principal bedrooms and no longer eat pancakes or use maple syrups because it might offend others. 

[Anton Phibes]

People obviously didn't pay as much attention to things of this nature in previous eras, or had thicker skin perhaps? Doesn't mean it wasn't racially insensitive, but it was seemingly all over the place.  Invisible Ray, if viewed by some of these folks, would make the offended parties heads explode. Lugosi refers to a black child as a "little savage" and Karloff calls fully grown native tribesmen "boys". It, the Terror From Beyond Space would melt feminists and environmentalists faces off. As the female scientists serve the males coffee and food, and the men pollute Mars by "throwing a bunch of empty crates overboard". Howabout the Mask of Fu Manchu? Calling Asians "yellow devils". Plus, everyone smokes like freight trains in most older films. We all know smoking is a killer nowadays. Censoring everything isn't the answer. Just put the trigger warning on the potentially offending item (like Disney is doing). Learning from the mistakes of the past is how you grow. Erasing their existence is censorship.

[Mike Scott]

Erasing their existence is censorship.

It's only censorship if the government is doing it to you. There's nothing wrong with people censoring themselves.

[Mike Scott]

Again, UMA is the wrong place for this, so I'm going to ignore this thread and hope it dies out.

[Joseph_Baeza]

Learning from the mistakes of the past is how you grow. Erasing their existence is censorship.

That sums it up perfectly, my friend.  On to more discussions about monsters and toys we love.

[zombiehorror]

I just find it interesting that for decades conservatives were ok with censorship when it came to their code of morality but now that it's being done in the name of cultural sensitivity and inclusivity they are in an uproar over it.

[Anton Phibes]

The six books in question weren't exactly the good doctor's most familiar. Til now. Check out ebay prices when you've the time. Now these books will forever be remembered. Probably far more than Green Eggs and Ham and The Cat in the Hat. I doubt this was the result they desired. No one cared before. Now they do. Funny thing about people, particularly Americans. When someone tells us we can't have something, even if we never desired it before they told us 'no', we then decide we want it. The same thing happened with Dukes of Hazard, and more recently with Cara Dunne figures from Mandalorian.  Everyone rushes out to make a museum of banned things as if they were V. Dr, Suess was a liberal, by the way. Just in case anyone cares. Check out his book on The Sneeches, as it gives a little insight as to how he felt about people. My favorite was "Are you my Mother?" by Eastman, released under the Seuss book club. I loved reading that to my son when he was a toddler.

[LundyAfterMidnight]

I just find it interesting that for decades conservatives were ok with censorship when it came to their code of morality but now that it's being done in the name of cultural sensitivity and inclusivity they are in an uproar over it.

Exactly. It isn't "cancel culture" or censorship, it's respect. POC & LGBTQ people have been "canceled" for decades, centuries even. How much longer should they continue to endure insensitivity, discrimination & violence?? Life's been pretty good to you if you're actually feeling a sense of loss over pancake syrup & Dr. Seuss.

[Hepcat]

It's only censorship if the government is doing it to you. There's nothing wrong with people censoring themselves.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I'd rephrase your second sentence thus to avoid using the word censorship where you say it's not applicable:

"There's nothing wrong when people decide for themselves what to say and what not to say."

Never will I argue that the Dr. Seuss people are not within their rights to remove these books. I just think they're being supercilious at best. Just because a decision is within your rights doesn't mean that you can expect your decision to be free of public criticism or consequence.

In other words for governments to censor is unequivocally wrong because this involves force. (The key question is always where/how force is being applied.) As individuals we should all be free to express ourselves in whatever fashion. If however some other individual doesn't like what someone is expressing, he is also free to let that someone know what he thinks.

[Hepcat]

I wasn't going to say anything more here but some of the discussion has now degenerated from underlying philosophical principles to blatant political shots:

I just find it interesting that for decades conservatives were ok with censorship when it came to their code of morality but now that it's being done in the name of cultural sensitivity and inclusivity they are in an uproar over it.

An oft repeated statement and a perfect example of a false dichotomy. Why the hell are you assuming that many of the same people (whom you cavalierly label conservatives) champion censorship on the basis of morality but are opposed to it on the basis of cultural sensitivity and "inclusivity"(your term not mine)?

Well I'm a fiscal conservative and I'm one and the same person in all cases. But let me tell you that I'm just as irritated by those who champion "family values" as I am by the "cultural sensitivity" crowd. (I'm not in the least religious, nor am I a prude and I believe in a very strict separation between Church and State. The "In God We Trust" phrase has no business being on the coinage.) A pox on both the "family values" and "cultural sensitivity" crowds (and here I'm restraining my remarks).

The dichotomy is actually between those who would stifle free expression and those who champion free expression.